Sediment supply versus storm winnowing in the development of muddy and shelly interbeds from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati region, USAThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme<i>The dynamic reef and shelly communities of the Paleozoic. This Special is in honour of our colleague and friend Paul Copper</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shell-bed development can be a product of complex sedimentological and biological factors. The Upper Ordovician sediments near Cincinnati, Ohio constitute a succession of thinly interbedded shelly carbonates and mudrocks. Despite years of study, the development of Cincinnatian shell beds and metre-scale cycles has, until recently, been attributed solely to storm reworking. This “storm-winnowing model” treats shells as passive sedimentary clasts, ignoring other factors of shell-bed development. A recently proposed alternative is Brett and Algeo’s idea that these shell beds grew during long periods of normally low sedimentation, while most mud accumulated during brief periods of high sedimentation. Under this “episodic starvation model,” any storms would winnow pre-existing muds and shell beds alike. We tested both models in the Edenian–Maysvillian (early to mid Katian) strata of the Cincinnati region by compiling observations on their petrologic, taphonomic, and paleoecologic characteristics. The storm-winnowing model does not explain several observed features that the episodic starvation model does, including (i) storm-related sedimentary structures in mudrocks and limestones; (ii) lack of a sufficiently fossiliferous precursor deposit to winnow; (iii) deep-water faunas in grainstones; (iv) mixed taphonomic conditions of shell-bed fossils; (v) ubiquitous discontinuity surfaces; (vi) carbonate concretion horizons; (vii) unwinnowed shell beds; and (viii) micrite in packstones. Episodic starvation is a superior explanation because it explains all of these features and allows for the complex interplay of other environmental and biological factors that contribute to shell-bed growth. It may also be applicable to other deposits, previously interpreted as tempestites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".